I had always assumed Apple's dealings with U2 were more about Steve's love for U2 than an actual business partnership. What did Apple ever really get from the partnership. U2's fanbase just isn't Apple's target market. There are much better bands out there that Apple could be dealing with for 1/4 of the cost and 1/4 of the ego as U2.

C'mmon...this is funny. Who wouldn't tune in to a reality show starring a washed up rock star with funny glasses blinding us with science straight from Cupertino. Throw Steve Jobs and some honeys in there and you'd have a major hit show no nerd could look away from. I say apple missed the boat on this one.

Or doesn't anyone remember the arrogance of the band during their "Zoo TV" days, when they refused to play any of the old songs while on tour, because it would take away from the glory that was "Zoo TV."

Once upon a time you were relevant, Bono. But in my book? Your 15 minutes of fame has lasted way too long.

I, for one, will be rather pleased once Research In Motion finally figures out that they were the ones that got "RIM'd."

Of course the decision by U2 to switch sides has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of money they were offered by RIM? Bono makes me sick, he bangs on about all that RED bollocks yet doesn't pay his taxes and expects everyone else to fund his charities why he seal major commercial deals for his own benefit.

I rolled my eyes when I heard the title of UT's first single -- "Magnificent."

You spend enough time in the bubble -- "advising" Tony Blair, etc. -- you start thinking you can jump on Oprah's couch. Bono, dude, you still have to take a crap twice a day like the rest of us. Get over yourself.

...and the use of "fanboi" automatically makes your comments irrelevant.

The fact is that Apple is considered a "cool" brand and lots of cool hip people own Apple products, especially in the music and entertainment industry. There are studies done on branding every year that come back with that conclusion. It's also a "given" that Blackberry is a brand most admired by business geeks, generally of the 40+ age range and isn't considered particularly "cool" but merely practical.

For a seriously ageing band that hasn't had a good hit song in a lot of years, to be associating themselves with older geeky business execs rather than the young, cool brand is a questionable move.

According to AppleInsider, ?Restrictions drove U2 to switch sides from Apple to RIM?, Apple lost the sponsorship opportunity for U2 to RIM due to Apple not being willing to appease U2. I?m not that big of a fan of U2 (and forget the ?but U2 sucks? comments), the fact is, U2 is HUGE. While artistically I think they ran out of substance a long time ago and are running high on gimmicks, they do get millions of people engaged in what they?re doing around the world.

From U2?s perspective, they want to be treated like the artistic Gods they think they are. They want *something*, anything that their status gives them exclusive access to, so they can seem cutting edge.

Apple, isn?t so accustomed to placating in this regard, and probably has the perspective that they?ve got all kinds of high priority partners to provide direct support and access to, such as Microsoft (Office for the iPhone), or Adobe (Flash).

Given the clash of corporate and brand protecting egotistical giants, I could see how there would be a conflict between U2 and Apple.

But this ultimately ends up hurting Apple.

U2 goes on and does something with RIM for the Blackberry, which will probably be something with less whiz-bang bells and whistles. However, Apple loses the promotional opportunity completely. Furthermore, Apple loses some of its edge as the media smartphone as opposed to just the smartphone. In other words, some people may see the Blackberry as just as hip, cool, and media savvy, but better for business use than the iPhone. The opposite of this of course would be Microsoft offering Office for the iPhone as an exclusive.

Of course all of this assumes that the article at AppleInsider is correct, and Apple lost U2 for reasons other than RIM simply just deciding this opportunity was worth pouring a boatload of cash into and simply outbidding Apple.

The bottom line though is that this is yet another example of how Apple needs to open up and play nicer with partners. Somehow though I can?t imagine Steve Jobs is spending his time off right now ripping up iU2 photos.

According to AppleInsider, ?Restrictions drove U2 to switch sides from Apple to RIM?, Apple lost the sponsorship opportunity for U2 to RIM due to Apple not being willing to appease U2. I?m not that big of a fan of U2 (and forget the ?but U2 sucks? comments), the fact is, U2 is HUGE. While artistically I think they ran out of substance a long time ago and are running high on gimmicks, they do get millions of people engaged in what they?re doing around the world.

From U2?s perspective, they want to be treated like the artistic Gods they think they are. They want *something*, anything that their status gives them exclusive access to, so they can seem cutting edge.

Apple, isn?t so accustomed to placating in this regard, and probably has the perspective that they?ve got all kinds of high priority partners to provide direct support and access to, such as Microsoft (Office for the iPhone), or Adobe (Flash).

Given the clash of corporate and brand protecting egotistical giants, I could see how there would be a conflict between U2 and Apple.

But this ultimately ends up hurting Apple.

U2 goes on and does something with RIM for the Blackberry, which will probably be something with less whiz-bang bells and whistles. However, Apple loses the promotional opportunity completely. Furthermore, Apple loses some of its edge as the media smartphone as opposed to just the smartphone. In other words, some people may see the Blackberry as just as hip, cool, and media savvy, but better for business use than the iPhone. The opposite of this of course would be Microsoft offering Office for the iPhone as an exclusive.

Of course all of this assumes that the article at AppleInsider is correct, and Apple lost U2 for reasons other than RIM simply just deciding this opportunity was worth pouring a boatload of cash into and simply outbidding Apple.

The bottom line though is that this is yet another example of how Apple needs to open up and play nicer with partners. Somehow though I can?t imagine Steve Jobs is spending his time off right now ripping up iU2 photos.

Gibberish.

Let's assume what the above thinks would negate this argument: that the U2/RIM deal is strictly a matter of cash. How does that change anything? If it's a win for RIM, PR wise, why does the deal being done on strictly mercantile terms make it any less a win? Or any more of a win, if that how it strikes you?

And how is U2 a "partner" that is emblematic of Apple's need to play nicer? Apple needs to play nice with its developers and third party peripheral makers. Given the state of both, they appear to playing plenty nice enough. The fact that they may or may not have given a rock band sufficient ass kissing to keep them happy has no bearing on that.

i'm a mac fan and a u2 fan... in fact my u2 ipod sits proudly on my shelf - it died a death like most ipods do.

yeah was surprised at the blackberry move - u2 aren't used to taking corporate sponsors so there must be something there they're hoping to explore or the economy has forced their hand.

for those rantin bout the taxes - they moved most of their earnings and interests offshore might be hypocritical but i too would rather have more cash in hand which i can choose to whom to give it to or spend it (nice mac pros come to mind..) rather than give more to incompetent governments lining their pockets and mismanaging everything.

those who ranted on the arrogance of zootv with them not wanting to play old songs... u2 generally play a mix of old and new. heck on the last tour they played songs from their first album too

i like their new album more than their previous two and it also has a mac reference in a lyric ("force quit and move to trust")

The fact is that Apple is considered a "cool" brand and lots of cool hip people own Apple products, especially in the music and entertainment industry. There are studies done on branding every year that come back with that conclusion. It's also a "given" that Blackberry is a brand most admired by business geeks, generally of the 40+ age range and isn't considered particularly "cool" but merely practical.

For a seriously ageing band that hasn't had a good hit song in a lot of years, to be associating themselves with older geeky business execs rather than the young, cool brand is a questionable move.

If U2 is seen as "past it," their business suffers.

I think your identification of the target demographic is correct, however I disagree that it

will make RIM's business suffer. I think U2 and Blackberries appeal to the same group of

people. I think Apple's target group is much younger, thus they would be better served

by hiring a band who appeals to younger people, if they want to hire a band at all.

Why the heck would they need access to the labs? Is Bono a scientist now?

I predict this switch will be the last nail in U2's coffin. They are already ancient and mostly irrelevant. Switching from the cool brand to the un-cool brand is all it will take to make anyone younger than 50 or so think twice about buying their albums.

I could only guess they wanted some kind of app that would allow them to interact with people at the show (maybe turn all devices into some massive automated lighting effect?)... anyway, they should have simply developed an app and sold it.

No grudges held against U2 or Bono, they're just doing what they think is best for themselves.